CPZ in Dulwich Village ward to go live on January 6

[Earl Aelfheah]

exdulwicher is right about the funding of projects like the Dulwich LTN not being directly funded or linked to CPZs. It was funded by the UK government's Emergency Active Travel Fund initially. Guy’s and St Thomas’ charity also funded some low-traffic neighbourhoods elsewhere in the borough, to tackle air pollution and obesity. I know you are not in favour of the changes made to road layouts 4 years ago, but this thread isn't about that. 

The CPZ, is about tackling concerns (repeatedly raised by residents) about inconsiderate and unsafe parking-related issues, linked to local schools, amongst other things.

btw, if you're really interested in the councils budget, there is information here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-tax/how-we-manage-council-tax/our-budget-and-how-we-spend-council-tax

Edited Friday at 15:40 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

40 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The CPZ, is about tackling concerns (repeatedly raised by residents) about inconsiderate and unsafe parking-related issues, linked to local schools, amongst other things.

Concerns raised by a few residents...and then when consulted the majority of residents say no thanks and the council says....tough...we know what's best for you and drill down to a street by half street view of the detail!!! 😉 

[first mate]

50 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

exdulwicher is right about the funding of projects like the Dulwich LTN not being directly funded or linked to CPZs. It was funded by the UK government's Emergency Active Travel Fund initially. Guy’s and St Thomas’ charity also funded some low-traffic neighbourhoods elsewhere in the borough, to tackle air pollution and obesity. I know you are not in favour of the changes made to road layouts 4 years ago, but this thread isn't about that. 

What about Dulwich Square, where did the funding for that come from? I should remind you that the finishing touches to that were effected just weeks ago, just in time for the new, but unwanted Dulwich CPZ.

 

[exdulwicher]

44 minutes ago, first mate said:

What about Dulwich Square, where did the funding for that come from? I should remind you that the finishing touches to that were effected just weeks ago, just in time for the new, but unwanted Dulwich CPZ.

It's entirely separate to the point of the thread which is CPZ but it came from the Southwark's Streets for People strategy:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/improving-streets-and-spaces/streets-people/dulwich-projects/dulwich-village

which is funded from a variety of sources. DfT, what used to be (under the previous Government) called the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), TfL (via their Liveable Neighbourhoods Programme) and the Government's Safer Streets Fund which I think is on Tranche 5 now (since it was launched in 2020) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safer-streets-fund-round-five/safer-streets-fund.

There's probably something from Active Travel England in there too.

That;s entirely normal for any large-scale intervention like that, there's no way it could be funded from CPZ surplus.

Edit: none of the above is any great secret or conspiracy by the way, it's literally all there on Southwark's website. I'm sure if you emailed the highways team they could probably supply you a breakdown of which funds came from where.

Edited Friday at 17:18 by exdulwicher

[first mate]

Nothing then from a Section 106 re the adjacent development?

Interesting about the Safer Streets Fund- it will be interesting to see how much safer that junction is, given concerns about cyclists using pedestrian areas.

Thanks Dulwich Way for your informed input. Lots of useful detail. I think we now need to know more about how CPZ/ parking surplus is to be spent in Southwark. For reasons already stated, I'd imagine there'll be plenty of it.

 

[malumbu]

Safer Streets is about crime.  If that programme was about road safety it would banning cars, accelerate autonomous vehicles and improve driving standards 

Edited Friday at 20:27 by malumbu

[first mate]

I had understood from Ex D that funding for Dulwich Square came partly from Safer Streets? Are you saying that funding for Dulwich Square was not from that source? Or was there a need to reduce street crime at that junction, hence the funding? Guess I am trying to understand how that small bit of reconfigured road qualified for safer streets funding, given you say the programme is only about crime? Not only that, how does this reconfiguration reduce crime?

Again, the 'finished' Square seems to have been timed to be ready for the new Dulwich CPZ, so journeys are not only longer but locals will also have to pay more to make them if they have to use a car.

 

[first mate]

Earl said:   "The CPZ, is about tackling concerns (repeatedly raised by residents) about inconsiderate and unsafe parking-related issues, linked to local schools, amongst other things."

Raised it seems by a minority of residents, the wishes of the majority being ignored- as per the recent council consultation. The council could have chosen to put a CPZ on just one street where residents had concerns, but it decided to increase the CPZ. Why?

We should also point out that the council's stated aim is to use CPZ to reduce car journeys. In this area, which is low ptals, what is the council doing to increase and improve public transport- not everyone can cycle or walk?

[Earl Aelfheah]

@first mate, why don’t you have a look at the Southwark budget docs (all published) and ask your councillor to answer any questions you have.
We have already discussed PTAL. It’s clear there is a misunderstanding of its relevance to this debate. The quickest way to increase PTALs in Dulwich Village would be to build a load of high density housing / flats near the main road, or to have buses cutting through the park. The reality is that the character and topography of the village explains its score. But more fundamentally, a lower PTAL does not suggest it’s a good idea to encourage more cars from outside the area, and more congestion, or make it more difficult for residents to park, or visit the shops. 

Edited Saturday at 10:06 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

17 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The quickest way to increase PTALs in Dulwich Village would be to build a load of hi gh density housing / flats near the main road, or to have buses cutting through the park

No, the quickest way would be to implement more, and more frequent buses, and indeed more frequent trains, neither of course in Southwark's remit. If you made housing more dense without doing this it would make the PTAL much worse, as even more people would not have access to decent public transport. Housing density may make supply of public transport more fiscally attractive BUT IT HAS TO BE SUPPLIED (my shouting). As it is you'd just have more people trying to catch the same number of poorly supplied buses. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

You could massively increase the frequency of buses running through the village. Many people would still have the same long walk to the bus stop. 
the fact is that the lack of density in terms of housing, the many, wide open spaces, are a significant factor in the Vilage’s relatively low PTAL

On 18/12/2024 at 15:56, Rockets said:

A location will have a higher PTAL if:

• It is at a short walking distance to the nearest stations or stops

I also do not understand how a relatively low PTAL somehow makes the argument against a CPZ? What’s the link in your mind?

Edited Saturday at 10:43 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

It doesn't - PTAL impacts LTN decisions - or rather, it should and it was Southwark's own guidance about PTAL which was overturned when it came to implementing the Dulwich LTNs.  I certainly didn't introduce PTAL into this discussion - I merely pointed out that someone referencing environmental issues as a CPZ justification seemed to be confusing CPZs (about parking pressure) with LTN (about the environment and 'healthy' travelling).

And your view that PTAL is a function of population density and not lack of public transport is simply wrong. Dense populations attract, because they are fiscally rewarding, more public transport, but it is the amount of public transport (frequency, convenience of location of stops) which influence PTAL scores, not the population density. Correlation does not imply causation.

[first mate]

54 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

But more fundamentally, a lower PTAL does not suggest it’s a good idea to encourage more cars from outside the area, and more congestion, or make it more difficult for residents to park, or visit the shops. 

But the majority of residents in the area CPZ consultation have no problems parking and prior to Dulwich Sq no problems shopping ( for some access is now a bigger issue). It was possible to limit the CPZ to that road where parking was an issue - mostly I believe down to school students parking. But many residents have also complained about issues with diesel-powered school coaches parking.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Fair enough. If you think there is no issue with congestion or parking, then maybe a CPZ isn’t needed. Again, not sure what that has to do with either the square / LTN (this thread is about CPZ), or PTAL.

[first mate]

1 minute ago, Penguin68 said:

merely pointed out that someone referencing environmental issues as a CPZ justification seemed to be confusing CPZs (about parking pressure) with LTN (about the environment and 'healthy' travelling

It is all quite convoluted but I believe parking surplus derived from CPZ can be used to make improvements to the public realm and environment. I guess it depends on definitions, but reducing pollution and improving air quality ( alleged by- products of CPZ) is arguably about the environment.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 minute ago, first mate said:

I believe parking surplus derived from CPZ can be used to make improvements to the public realm and environment

Are you saying you’re against potential improvements to the public realm and the environment from a potential surplus? I don’t get the point.

[first mate]

1 minute ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Fair enough. If you think there is no issue with congestion or parking, then maybe a CPZ isn’t needed. Again, not sure what that has to do with either the square / LTN (this thread is about CPZ), or PTAL.

No it is not what I think but what the results of the recent CPZ consultation showed. The majority were very clearly against a CPZ and did not feel it necessary. Surely they are the best judge of traffic levels in their neighbourhood? 

I am talking about CPZ?!

Despite clear results against CPZ it has been imposed by the council anyway. Why? Although in their guidance they more or less flagged they would go ahead indicating consultation is just a box ticking exercise.

I do think of the huge upfront investment they made last year in CPZ infrastructure and personnel (cameras, wardens etc.. running to millions). That was before they backed down on a borough-wide CPZ, but I do wonder if that is partly the motivation now?

5 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Are you saying you’re against potential improvements to the public realm and the environment from a potential surplus? I don’t get the point.

Improvement is in the eye of the beholder. For instance, no doubt you and Southwark Council view Dulwich Sq and the new CPZ as improvements. As you must be aware, not everyone shares that view. 

[Penguin68]

Southwark has a single budget head 'Cleaner, Greener, Safer' which has allowed special spend initiatives sponsored often by local counsellors based on feedback from their wards. Monies derived from CPZ revenues, should there be a surplus over the cost of running the CPZ, which is where all revenue is intended to post, can be applied to this budget, but that doesn't mean that  CPZs are intended to address Green issues. Nor are they ever a justification for creating a CPZ. Parking pressure is the only legitimate reason. Indeed, where school road safety is concerned there are special measures to close off streets at the start and close of the school day, during term, to allow this. 

[first mate]

In its Q&A document in Dulwich Village Junction and CPZ, Southwark Council states in section15., that the purpose of the CPZ 'is to reduce unnecessary car journeys into the borough, while encouraging more sustainable and healthy forms of transport like walking and cycling'. Those are the points they mention first, so while I am sure a good lawyer can argue that this is really just another way of talking about parking pressure, they are justifying CPZ in a very different way, to my mind.

As we know, local residents do not think there is parking pressure that would justify CPZ.

31 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Indeed, where school road safety is concerned there are special measures to close off streets at the start and close of the school day, during term, to allow this.

Quite, what about the good old lollipop lady? Cheaper surely than reconfiguring a road, CPZ, LTNs or even a school street.

[Earl Aelfheah]

A lolly pop lady doesn’t have anything to do with parking.

7 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

PTAL impacts LTN decisions - or rather, it should and it was Southwark's own guidance about PTAL which was overturned when it came to implementing the Dulwich LTNs.

It wasn’t in Southwark’s guidance. See the chat above. Southwark’s guidance recommends borough wide LTNs. And again, this thread is about CPZs

Edited Saturday at 18:04 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

The Council in its Q&A document, section 15, on Dulwich CPZ and Junction ( it chooses to address both in one document) also states that it has to reduce parking in order to effect its 'Streets for People' 'improvements'. They are linked, whether you like it or not. The Council says they are. Streets for People includes safety- therefore my mention of lollipop handlers, to stop traffic to allow children to cross roads safely.  
 

One possible conclusion is that, by their own admission, Southwark need to impose CPZ in order to perpetuate their Streets for People initiative, of which Dulwich Junction is one example. 

 

Edited Saturday at 18:44 by first mate

[Rockets]

Let's be honest it's not clear what the motivation is for CPZs and, for some reason, the council is hellbent on bringing them borough-wide. They were trying pre-Covid (68% of respondents said no) and have continued after (and the responses are even more in the negative) yet they continue their approach of spending tax-payers money on consultations to do one road at a time where they manage to garner just enough support to force a CPZ.

Yet the council persevere against the wishes of the majority. The council goes out of their way to create parking pressure (extension of double yellow lines to the legal maximum) by every means open to them to try and create support for CPZs and still they can't get enough support to justify them. At the same time they tell us that we are reliant on cars in this part of the borough due to poor PTAL scores. So are they doing this just to spite drivers?

Yet they fail to get enough support to roll out their plans but then spend tax-payers money on securing agreements with CPZ enforcement based on area-wide CPZs and then have surplus wardens who have no tickets to issue.

So does anyone know why they are so obsessed with them? I am still convinced this is about revenue-generation and I bet a forensic accountant could tell us why it is so important to them and how they use the money to their advantage. Everything they do is about generating revenue at the cost of constituents.

Because there is no other rational explanation for their utter obsession with rolling them out - there is zero environmental impact as they make no difference to car ownership nor journeys made. I am convinced they throw environmental messages in to drag the gullible into the debate. The council have yet to present a rational explanation and over the years they have lurched back and forth on reasoning - remember the supposed commuters driving from Kent nonsense they suggested the first time round.

Someone knows and one day we may actually find out. 

Edited Sunday at 12:44 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 21/12/2024 at 11:00, Penguin68 said:

And your view that PTAL is a function of population density and not lack of public transport is simply wrong.

A location will have a higher PTAL if it is at a short walking distance to the nearest stations or stops. If you live in an area with lots of playing fields and parks and where there are lots of big detached houses with big gardens spread out across fewer streets, then stops will tend to be further away for many of the residents in that area.

What is more, an area that is more dependent on car, bus, bicycle or foot to get about, needs action to cut down on congestion just as much, if not more than areas where public transport is easy to access.

Lastly, Southwark do no have guidance saying that LTNs or other active travel measure should only happen in the north of the borough, or in areas with a high PTAL as repeatedly claimed. So can we please stop spreading this misinformation?

14 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Because there is no other rational explanation for their utter obsession with rolling them out

The council have been very clear about their desire to make the borough safer, and greener; to reduce traffic, congestion and pollution, and encourage active travel. They were elected on that basis. They probably believe that controlled parking is part of a strategy to achieve those things. Plus, there are problems with dangerous and inconsiderate parking around the school at particular times, which again, they probably believe this will help address. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Edited Sunday at 12:57 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

 

30 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Lastly, Southwark do no have guidance saying that LTNs or other active travel measure should only happen in the north of the borough, or in areas with a high PTAL as repeatedly claimed. So can we please stop spreading this misinformation?

Except this is what they said....Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true. They were very clear that interventions should only happen in areas with high PTAL scores....and that's not Dulwich Village...

[exdulwicher]

41 minutes ago, Rockets said:

due to poor PTAL scores.

I love how you try to use PTAL. 🙄

It was originally a planning tool, actually to help developers work out car park spaces. It's a very basic system and while it's still useful for "at a glance" stuff, it's long been superseded by accessibility matrices and spatial heatmap tools. PTAL calculates walking distance from bus and train (inc tube, DLR etc) stops assuming:
an average walking speed of 80m / min
that people are willing to walk up to 8 min for a bus and 12 mins for a train so distances of 640m and 960m respectively.

It does take into account service level (so a bus every 10 mins is better than one every 15 mins) but it doesn't take into account the destination.

Therefore, as pointed out, an area like Dulwich made up of large open spaces like the Park, school playing fields etc will NEVER have a "good" PTAL score. So you could improve PTAL by building over all of that then running some roads (and bus stops) through it.

Or... You know what does improve PTAL? Making it easier to walk (and cycle, although that's not explicitly calculated by PTAL). If you have to cross 3 busy roads, each with a wait of 3 minutes before the green man, that's a serious limitation on PTAL, people are less likely to walk. If you can create a direct walking route - maybe by, oh I dunno, removing the traffic from Dulwich Square say - you can eliminate the wait and effectively shorten the walking time. 

This works for cycling too (although as I say, it's not specifically included in the calculation) but if you can make it easy to cycle (minimising through traffic, more cycle routes, e-bike/e-scooter hire...) then it's easy to pick a bike up and ride a distance that would be annoyingly far to walk, like to HH or West Dulwich stations or to bus stops on the South Circular. Decent active travel infrastructure widens the catchment area for public transport by up to 10x therefore dramatically increasing PTAL

And by the way, "poor" PTAL does not mean poor public transport. It's a comparison tool and PTAL of 5, 6a and 6b is basically "the centre of London". And even there, you have blocks of space like Kensington Gardens, Regent's Park etc with PTAL of 1a, 1b and 2. 

Edited Sunday at 13:25 by exdulwicher
grammar